Many of them can all be lumped together or the responses can be repeated. For instance, 15-20 may probably all be dismissed with [[Douglas Adams]]' "sentient puddle" analogy. Is there another name for that besides the fine tuning argument? --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 15:37, 18 June 2008 (CDT)

Many of them can all be lumped together or the responses can be repeated. For instance, 15-20 may probably all be dismissed with [[Douglas Adams]]' "sentient puddle" analogy. Is there another name for that besides the fine tuning argument? --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 15:37, 18 June 2008 (CDT)

−

:As far as fallacies go, these could be a combination of unaccepted enthymemes, the existential fallacy, tautology, and/or denying the antecedent, and, of course, a priorism.

+

:As far as fallacies go, these could be a combination of unaccepted enthymemes, the existential fallacy, tautology, and/or denying the antecedent, and, of course, a priorism. -- [[User:Nullifidian|Nullifidian]] 19:48, 18 June 2008 (CDT)

I understand the need to remain entirely objective, but I'm having trouble coming to an answer that isn't a giant "you're an idiot" with response to "26. If man has evolved from an animal, why doesn't he behave like an animal? Yet man is civilised." War, famine, corruption, oppression, slavery, hatred, racism, homocide, infantacide, genocide. That's what runs through my head, and I don't think argument ad ignoratiam alone covers it. Anyway, I'd be interested in how to elegantly, neutrally and directly explaining this one. --[[User:Zurahn|Zurahn]] 18:41, 18 June 2008 (CDT)

I understand the need to remain entirely objective, but I'm having trouble coming to an answer that isn't a giant "you're an idiot" with response to "26. If man has evolved from an animal, why doesn't he behave like an animal? Yet man is civilised." War, famine, corruption, oppression, slavery, hatred, racism, homocide, infantacide, genocide. That's what runs through my head, and I don't think argument ad ignoratiam alone covers it. Anyway, I'd be interested in how to elegantly, neutrally and directly explaining this one. --[[User:Zurahn|Zurahn]] 18:41, 18 June 2008 (CDT)

:+1 for the "you're an idiot" response to most of these. Is that allowed, or do we have to play by the rules even when they refuse to/are unable? [[User:Nullifidian|Nullifidian]] 19:31, 18 June 2008 (CDT)

:+1 for the "you're an idiot" response to most of these. Is that allowed, or do we have to play by the rules even when they refuse to/are unable? [[User:Nullifidian|Nullifidian]] 19:31, 18 June 2008 (CDT)

Revision as of 18:48, 18 June 2008

To be honest, so much of this is simply gibberish, it's going to take a while to sort out proper responses. And we thought Gish galloping was dead! Nullifidian 14:01, 18 June 2008 (CDT)

Many of them can all be lumped together or the responses can be repeated. For instance, 15-20 may probably all be dismissed with Douglas Adams' "sentient puddle" analogy. Is there another name for that besides the fine tuning argument? --Kazim 15:37, 18 June 2008 (CDT)

As far as fallacies go, these could be a combination of unaccepted enthymemes, the existential fallacy, tautology, and/or denying the antecedent, and, of course, a priorism. -- Nullifidian 19:48, 18 June 2008 (CDT)

I understand the need to remain entirely objective, but I'm having trouble coming to an answer that isn't a giant "you're an idiot" with response to "26. If man has evolved from an animal, why doesn't he behave like an animal? Yet man is civilised." War, famine, corruption, oppression, slavery, hatred, racism, homocide, infantacide, genocide. That's what runs through my head, and I don't think argument ad ignoratiam alone covers it. Anyway, I'd be interested in how to elegantly, neutrally and directly explaining this one. --Zurahn 18:41, 18 June 2008 (CDT)

+1 for the "you're an idiot" response to most of these. Is that allowed, or do we have to play by the rules even when they refuse to/are unable? Nullifidian 19:31, 18 June 2008 (CDT)